"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."
Awake! 2009 July
I posted this quote first before examining the methods that are used by the JWs for disfellowshipping someone. Why? As I continue, try to remember exactly what it says, and see if it ends up as a contradiction towards their reasoning with regards to discipline.
First, let's check out some recent articles and see what is being stated.
Consider just one example of the good that can come when a family loyally upholds Jehovah’s decree not to associate with disfellowshipped relatives. A young man had been disfellowshipped for over ten years, during which time his father, mother, and four brothers “quit mixing in company” with him. At times, he tried to involve himself in their activities, but to their credit, each member of the family was steadfast in not having any contact with him. After he was reinstated, he said that he always missed the association with his family, especially at night when he was alone. But, he admitted, had the family associated with him even a little, that small dose would have satisfied him. However, because he did not receive even the slightest communication from any of his family, the burning desire to be with them became one motivating factor in his restoring his relationship with Jehovah." Watchtower 2012 Apr 15 p.12
"Suppose, for example, that the only son of an exemplary Christian couple leaves the truth. Preferring "the temporary enjoyment of sin" to a personal relationship with Jehovah and with his godly parents, the young man is disfellowshipped. ... the Bible says "to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator... They also realise that the word "anyone" in this verse includes family members not living under their roof. ... Our hearts go out to those parents. After all, their son had a choice, and he chose to pursue his unchristian lifestyle rather than to continue to enjoy close association with his parents and other fellow believers. The parents, on the other hand, had no say in the matter. ... But what will those dear parents do? Will they obey Jehovah's clear direction? Or will they rationalize that they can have regular association with the disfellowshipped son and call it, "necessary family business"? In making their decision, they must not fail to consider how Jehovah feels about what they are doing. ... Today, Jehovah does not immediately execute those who violate his laws. He lovingly gives them an opportunity to repent from their unrighteous works. How would Jehovah feel, though, if the parents of an unrepentant wrongdoer kept putting Him to the test by having unnecessary association with their disfellowshipped son or daughter?"
Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 pp.31,32
"By cutting off contact with the disfellowshipped or disassociated one, you are showing that you hate the attitudes and actions that led to that outcome. However, you are also showing that you love the wrongdoer enough to do what is best for him or her. Your loyalty to Jehovah may increase the likelihood that the disciplined one will repent and return to Jehovah."
Watchtower 2011 Feb 15
Assist those having undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives. ... If members of the congregation are known to have undue association with disfellowshipped or disassociated relatives who are not in the household, elders should counsel and reason with those members of the congregation from the Scriptures. ... If it is clear that a Christian is violating the spirit of the disfellowshipping decree in this regard and does not respond to counsel, it may be that he would not qualify for congregation privileges, which require one to be exemplary. He would not be dealt with judicially unless there is persistent spiritual association or he openly criticizes the disfellowshipping decision. pp.114-116 Shepherd the Flock of God 2010
A heartrending experience for Aaron’s family is recorded at Leviticus 10:1-11.
They must have been devastated when fire from heaven consumed Aaron’s
sons Nadab and Abihu at the tabernacle. What a test of faith it was for
Aaron and his family not to mourn their dead relatives! Are you
personally proving yourself holy with regard to not associating with
family members or others who have been disfellowshipped?
This is extremely harsh treatment. A complete cutting off of any association with anyone that is disfellowshipped, even a family member. And if you decide to associate with that person, even on a minimal basis, you will more than likely lose your privileges, or even be disfellowshipped too. How does this line up with what the bible says about the treatment of those that were doing wrong?
It might be a good idea to see what Jesus said about how to treat a wrongdoer within the congregation.
Matt. 18:15-17--Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.
How often is this procedure followed? My guess would be that it is NOT followed at all. The matter is brought to an elder by some anonymous source, and then a private meeting is set up to discuss the matter. The only way that the matter is brought to the congregation is when an announcement is made naming the guilty one and the level of their punishment. But Jesus also said the following in Luke 6:27-37.
Luke 6:27-37 But I say to YOU who are listening, Continue to love YOUR enemies, to do good to those hating YOU,to bless those cursing YOU, to pray for those who are insulting YOU.To him that strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him that takes away your outer garment, do not withhold even the undergarment.Give to everyone asking you, and from the one taking your things away do not ask [them] back. Also, just as YOU want men to do to YOU, do the same way to them. And if YOU love those loving YOU, of what credit is it to YOU? For even the sinners love those loving them.And if YOU do good to those doing good to YOU, really of what credit is it to YOU? Even the sinners do the same. Also, if YOU lend [without interest] to those from whom YOU hope to receive, of what credit is it to YOU? Even sinners lend [without interest] to sinners that they may get back as much. To the contrary, continue to love YOUR enemies and to do good and to lend [without interest], not hoping for anything back; and YOUR reward will be great, and YOU will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind toward the unthankful and wicked. Continue becoming merciful, just as YOUR Father is merciful. Moreover, stop judging, and YOU will by no means be judged; and stop condemning, and YOU will by no means be condemned."
Stop judging and condemning others, instead you should love them. The Golden Rule was Jesus' advice. Even in the worst case, he said to treat them as a tax collector. In modern times, that could be likened to what the jws call a "worldly" person. Did he say to shun them?
Paul's advice is often used to justify disfellowshipping. One of the most common used verses is found in 1 Cor. 5:11.
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing YOU to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do YOU not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.
But does this verse say to SHUN that person? No. It says to quit mixing in company with them, in other words, don't socialize with that person. Also, a key phrase that is often overlooked is ANYONE CALLED A BROTHER. That simply means that anyone that is still part of the congregation, not those outside, as Paul makes it clear that God will judge those ones. This distinction is very important when we consider the next quote.
2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us . 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.
Marking an individual does not mean to excommunicate that person. It simply means to keep an eye on them.
2 Corinthians 2:5-6 "Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of YOU to an extent-not to be too harsh in what I say. This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man "
Rebuke given by the majority? Yes, apparently some were allowed not share in the rebuking of the individual if they chose not to do so.
What if the reason for discipline is something that was never taught?
3 John 9-10 "I wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words. Also, not being content with these things, neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect, and those who are wanting to receive them he tries to hinder and to throw out of the congregation."
John reprimands Diotrephes for attempting to disfellowship people unnecessarily. As we see here, Diotrephes was "throwing people out" of the congregation.
If you examined the list of wrongdoings that could get you disfellowshipped, how many of them fall into the category of unscriptual?
The Watchtower Society used the following verses to justify the "not even say hello" to a disfellowshipped person. 2 John 7-11 says the following,
For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Look out for yourselves, that YOU do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that YOU may obtain a full reward. Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.
This is talking about the antichrist. Although they might attempt to cast an Apostate into this role, it should be wise to consider the context of these verses. The Jews had rejected Jesus. Also, in the first century, they held congregation meetings in the homes of believers. Those christians were under a great deal of pressure and had to be wary of those rejecting Christ that might find out their meeting places and cause problems for them. Clearly this is not aimed at someone that was marked in the congregation.
When they anounce from the stage that someone has been disfellowshipped, they say the following,
"[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovahs Witnesses." Organised to do Jehovahs Will (2005) p.154
If this person is no longer "recognized as a brother", this is a direct contradiction of what Paul stated when he said to continue admonishing them as a brother. Yet they continue to not allow any association with family members. They are cutting the person off completely, which is not scriptual.
So again, when we read this,
"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."
Awake! 2009 July
there is a definite contradiction in how the JWs are applying their own advice to current members. With this in mind, can the claim still be made that God is guiding them with His holy spirit?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Abstain From Blood?
Acts 15:29--You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
If we were to read this verse only, it would appear that abstaining from blood was definitely a command given to those in the congregation. But in order to gain a full understanding of this verse, we need to know the background story behind the verse. We also need to examine other areas including Jewish Laws, what Jesus said, and a comparison to other commands that were given. Let's begin with the story.
Acts chapter 15 begins with some men coming from Judea that entered into Antioch and began teaching this message, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This started a debate that needed to be addressed. Verse 5 states one side of the argument, and by whom it was being raised, 'Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” Peter then speaks up for the Gentiles and raises the other side of the argument. Verse 11 says, "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
In other words, the Gentiles are not held by Jewish Law, so there is no need to make them abide by it. Paul and Barnabas, who were supporting the Gentiles, spoke up on their behalf as well. James gives the final decision on this matter. He states in verses 19-20, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
But he doesn't finish there. Verse 21 says, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
So let's review what just happened here. The Jews demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised, a debate began over this issue, and a compromise was reached. They were to adhere to the four things mentioned, which included abstaining from blood. So again, it appears that to abstain from blood is a command given to the Gentiles to follow. But what was the purpose for following these four commands?
Go back to verse 21. James makes it clear that the Jews held to the Law of Moses from the earliest of times. Of course they were going to be offended if someone came along and did not hold to these customs, yet still attempted to be saved. This compromise was made in order to keep the Jews from becoming offended, or stumbled. But just how binding were these four commands set upon the Gentiles?
1 Corinthians 10:25-33 "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God's glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved."
Why would Paul say it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols if it was a written decree for Gentiles NOT to do so? To keep from stumbling the Jews. If it was ok to do these things as long as a Jew did not see you, it appears that these four commands were not binding after all, unless you were in the company of a Jew.
What does Jewish Laws say about blood? All four of these commands can be found in Lev. 17: 7 (sacrifices to idol), 10 (eating blood), 13 (bleeding an animal), and 18 (fornication). But there is another important issue to consider.
"According to pikuach nefesh a person must do everything in their power to save the life of another, even donate bodily organs. Ovaday Yosef, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, ruled that one may donate an organ to a person in critical need, so long as it does not put the donor's life at risk. It is also permissible to travel on Shabbat to save a person's life. Maimonides declared that a Jew should take the individual, even if a gentile is present, in order to encourage "compassion, loving-kindness and peace in the world" (Mishneh Torah, 2:3). The laws of the Sabbath may be suspended to provide any necessary medical care to a critically ill individual or to an individual in the likelihood of danger to life." Pikuach Nefesh, Ariel Scheib (Apr 22 2007) (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pikuach_nefesh.html)
In the following situations, Jesus invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh; that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.
Matthew 12:11 "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!"
Mark 3:4-5 "Next he said to them: "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?" But they kept silent. And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." - see also Luke 6:7-10
"Matthew 12:1-4, NW: "At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: 'Look! your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.' He said to them: 'Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, food it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?'" In these verses and in the ones following Jesus was calling attention to acts of mercy on the sabbath day, that it was perfectly legitimate to render a show of mercy to one who is in need even though it was the sabbath, and that there is, in effect, no violation of the sabbath by such course of action. He had no rebuke for David's course." - see also Mark 2:23-26" Watchtower 1952 Sep 15 p.575
Jesus also says, Matthew 12:7 "However, if YOU had understood what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice,' YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones."
So if the obligation to save a life supercedes Jewish Laws, to which Jesus agreed, is it safe to say that a blood transfusion would be found acceptable to God?
Another thing to think about is what Jesus said in Matthew 12:31-32. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."
Mark 3: 28-29 reads, ""Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "
If the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, would it be right to allow a person to die by strict obedience to a Jewish Law, which could be broken in order to save a life, according to pikuach nefesh ???
In conclusion, I think it would be safe to say that the JWs view of blood is wrong. The correct understanding in Acts 15 was to not stumble the Jews. The compromise was based on the Laws of Moses. Paul stated that the Gentiles were not held to those four commands, unless in the company of one that would be stumbled. Jesus states that life is more important than Jewish Law when he invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh. If all of this is not enough to convince you, let's consider one more thing.
1 Cor. 5:11, Paul does not list blood as a reason to quit associating with a brother. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God's Kingdom. If this was to be a strict Law that was to be held to, why wasn't it mentioned anywhere else?
If we were to read this verse only, it would appear that abstaining from blood was definitely a command given to those in the congregation. But in order to gain a full understanding of this verse, we need to know the background story behind the verse. We also need to examine other areas including Jewish Laws, what Jesus said, and a comparison to other commands that were given. Let's begin with the story.
Acts chapter 15 begins with some men coming from Judea that entered into Antioch and began teaching this message, “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This started a debate that needed to be addressed. Verse 5 states one side of the argument, and by whom it was being raised, 'Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.” Peter then speaks up for the Gentiles and raises the other side of the argument. Verse 11 says, "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
In other words, the Gentiles are not held by Jewish Law, so there is no need to make them abide by it. Paul and Barnabas, who were supporting the Gentiles, spoke up on their behalf as well. James gives the final decision on this matter. He states in verses 19-20, "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
But he doesn't finish there. Verse 21 says, "For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
So let's review what just happened here. The Jews demanded that the Gentiles be circumcised, a debate began over this issue, and a compromise was reached. They were to adhere to the four things mentioned, which included abstaining from blood. So again, it appears that to abstain from blood is a command given to the Gentiles to follow. But what was the purpose for following these four commands?
Go back to verse 21. James makes it clear that the Jews held to the Law of Moses from the earliest of times. Of course they were going to be offended if someone came along and did not hold to these customs, yet still attempted to be saved. This compromise was made in order to keep the Jews from becoming offended, or stumbled. But just how binding were these four commands set upon the Gentiles?
1 Corinthians 10:25-33 "Everything that is sold in a meat market keep eating, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience; for "to Jehovah belong the earth and that which fills it." If anyone of the unbelievers invites YOU and YOU wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before YOU, making no inquiry on account of YOUR conscience. But if anyone should say to YOU: "This is something offered in sacrifice," do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other person. For why should it be that my freedom is judged by another person's conscience? If I am partaking with thanks, why am I to be spoken of abusively over that for which I give thanks? Therefore, whether YOU are eating or drinking or doing anything else, do all things for God's glory. Keep from becoming causes for stumbling to Jews as well as Greeks and to the congregation of God, even as I am pleasing all people in all things, not seeking my own advantage but that of the many, in order that they might get saved."
Why would Paul say it was ok to eat food sacrificed to idols if it was a written decree for Gentiles NOT to do so? To keep from stumbling the Jews. If it was ok to do these things as long as a Jew did not see you, it appears that these four commands were not binding after all, unless you were in the company of a Jew.
What does Jewish Laws say about blood? All four of these commands can be found in Lev. 17: 7 (sacrifices to idol), 10 (eating blood), 13 (bleeding an animal), and 18 (fornication). But there is another important issue to consider.
"According to pikuach nefesh a person must do everything in their power to save the life of another, even donate bodily organs. Ovaday Yosef, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, ruled that one may donate an organ to a person in critical need, so long as it does not put the donor's life at risk. It is also permissible to travel on Shabbat to save a person's life. Maimonides declared that a Jew should take the individual, even if a gentile is present, in order to encourage "compassion, loving-kindness and peace in the world" (Mishneh Torah, 2:3). The laws of the Sabbath may be suspended to provide any necessary medical care to a critically ill individual or to an individual in the likelihood of danger to life." Pikuach Nefesh, Ariel Scheib (Apr 22 2007) (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/pikuach_nefesh.html)
In the following situations, Jesus invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh; that the obligation to save life supersedes Jewish law.
Matthew 12:11 "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!"
Mark 3:4-5 "Next he said to them: "Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?" But they kept silent. And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored." - see also Luke 6:7-10
"Matthew 12:1-4, NW: "At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: 'Look! your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.' He said to them: 'Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, food it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?'" In these verses and in the ones following Jesus was calling attention to acts of mercy on the sabbath day, that it was perfectly legitimate to render a show of mercy to one who is in need even though it was the sabbath, and that there is, in effect, no violation of the sabbath by such course of action. He had no rebuke for David's course." - see also Mark 2:23-26" Watchtower 1952 Sep 15 p.575
Jesus also says, Matthew 12:7 "However, if YOU had understood what this means, 'I want mercy, and not sacrifice,' YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones."
So if the obligation to save a life supercedes Jewish Laws, to which Jesus agreed, is it safe to say that a blood transfusion would be found acceptable to God?
Another thing to think about is what Jesus said in Matthew 12:31-32. "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."
Mark 3: 28-29 reads, ""Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "
If the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, would it be right to allow a person to die by strict obedience to a Jewish Law, which could be broken in order to save a life, according to pikuach nefesh ???
In conclusion, I think it would be safe to say that the JWs view of blood is wrong. The correct understanding in Acts 15 was to not stumble the Jews. The compromise was based on the Laws of Moses. Paul stated that the Gentiles were not held to those four commands, unless in the company of one that would be stumbled. Jesus states that life is more important than Jewish Law when he invoked the rabbinic principle of pikuach nefesh. If all of this is not enough to convince you, let's consider one more thing.
1 Cor. 5:11, Paul does not list blood as a reason to quit associating with a brother. In Revelation 21:8 and 1 Corinthians 6 blood is not said to be a reason for not inheriting God's Kingdom. If this was to be a strict Law that was to be held to, why wasn't it mentioned anywhere else?
Monday, January 30, 2012
This Generation Will By No Means Pass Away....
"Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." Matthew 24:34
It seems like a simple enough statement. But to attempt to understand exactly what a generation is, let's first look at a dictionary definition.
1) group of contemporaries: all of the people who were born at approximately the same time, considered as a group, and especially when considered as having shared interests and attitudes
"the younger generation"
2) stage in descent: a single stage in the descent of a family or a group of people, animals, or plants, or the individual members of that stage
"three generations down the line"
3) time taken to produce new generation: the period of time that it takes for people, animals, or plants to grow up and produce their own offspring, in humans held to be between 30 and 35 years
"after three generations of war and conflict"
4) particular generation in sequence: a particular numbered stage in the sequence of generations of a person being identified with a particular characteristic ( usually used in combination )
"a first-generation immigrant"
"a third-generation graduate"
It is easy to see here that a generation is defined as a group of people that are identified as aging within the same time period.
Now let's see how the bible views a generation.
Judges 2:10--After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel.
All that generation - i. e. the main body of those who were grown-up men at the time of the conquest of Canaan.
Exodus 1:6--In time, Joseph and all of his brothers died, ending that entire generation.
Self explanatory.
Matthew 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations."
This lists successive members of a genealogy.
Now compare that with the latest attempt from the Jehovah's Witnesses at explaining what a generation is.
"John Barr made clear that the gathering wound not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." He twice read the comment: "Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of the other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." We do not know the exact length of "this generation," but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!" (jwfacts.com)
Nowhere in the bible can this definition be found. If I am mistaken, I hope someone is kind enough to show me. What would lead them to draw this conclusion? Reread the last sentence in the above quote. It comforts them to know that younger anointed contemporaries will not die off before the great tribulation starts. I find that statement very revealing. Why? All one needs to do is examine the old claims.
"A "generation" might be reckoned as equivalent to a century (practically the present limit) or one hundred and twenty years, Moses' lifetime and the Scripture limit. (Gen. 6:3.) Reckoning a hundred years from 1780, the date of the first sign, the limit would reach to 1880 Or, since the Master said, "When ye shall see all these things," and since "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven," and the budding fig tree, and the gathering of "the elect" are counted among the signs, it would not be inconsistent to reckon the "generation" from 1878 to 1914--36 1/2 years-- about the average of human life today." Studies in the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance 1897 ed. pp.604, 605
After 1914 came and went, they changed to the next view.
"The irresistible conclusion therefore is that Jesus referred to the new creation [the anointed] when he said: “This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.” This then would be a strong indication that some members of the new creation will be on the earth at the time of Armageddon."”
The idea that a generation could last about 1900 years was changed to this--
"So it was on “this generation” that the accumulated judgments were to fall. (Matt. 23:36) This therefore means that from 1914 a generation shall not pass till all is fulfilled, and amidst a great time of trouble." Watchtower 1951 Jul 1 p.404
"The length of time is indicated by him when he said, "Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." (Matt. 24:34) The actual meaning of these words is, beyond question, that which takes a "generation" in the ordinary sense, as at Mark 8:12 and Acts 13:36, or for those who are living at the given period." Watchtower 1951 July 1 p.404
Interestingly enough, they must have questioned their own view, since it changed again. But let's continue viewing their claims for now.
"Jesus was obviously speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the 'last days' began. ... Even if we presume that youngsters 15 years of age would be perceptive enough to realize the import of what happened in 1914, it would still make the youngest of 'this generation' nearly 70 years old today." Awake! 1968 October 8 p.13
"According to available statistics, in 1980 approximately 250,000,000 of those who were alive in 1914 were still living. That generation is not yet gone. Interestingly, however, of those born in 1900 or earlier, figures published by the United Nations indicate that only an estimated 35,316,000 were still alive in 1980. So the number drops quickly as individuals reach their seventies and eighties. When considered along with all the details of Jesus’ prophetic sign, these facts strongly indicate that the end is near." Survival into a New Earth (1984) p.28 How Long Will the Present System Last?
And then came this little gem.
"Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah's people have at times speculated about the time when the "great tribulation" would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we "bring a heart of wisdom in," not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we "count our days" in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term "generation" as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics. In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: "A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates." Therefore, in the final fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy today, "this generation" apparently refers to the peoples of earth who see the sign of Christ's presence but fail to mend their ways Is anything to be gained, then, by looking for dates or by speculating about the literal lifetime of a "generation"?... Does our more precise viewpoint on "this generation" mean that Armageddon is further away than we had thought? Not at all! Though we at no time have known the "day and hour," Jehovah God has always known it, and he does not change. (Malachi 3:6) Obviously, the world is sinking further and further toward terminal ruination. The need to keep awake is more critical than it has ever been. Jehovah has revealed to us "the things that must shortly take place," and we should respond with an absorbing sense of urgency." Watchtower 1995 November 1 p.20
Wait a minute. Who was speculating again?
There are numerous quotes that can be pulled up to show that the JWs had no idea how to define what a generation is. It seems as if they would attempt to entice the public to believe that there was not much time remaining for them to decide. It also kept current members hopeful that the end was near.
Anyone with a reasonable mind has to wonder how a religious group that claims to be getting directed by God's holy spirit, could continuously error in their assessment of a generation. Whenever one explanation doesn't seem to attract the attention of outsiders, a change is made to stimulate interest once again. And apparently they will not openly state they were mistaken, as once more, it was Jehovah's people that were doing the speculating. But then again, they had to. If anyone decided to speak up and say that these ever-shifting views were in error, they would have been disfellowshipped on the spot.
This latest attempt at what defines a generation has to be the worst one yet. It is a far cry from the following quote,
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."
Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15
How much longer will people continue to trust the statements given?
It seems like a simple enough statement. But to attempt to understand exactly what a generation is, let's first look at a dictionary definition.
1) group of contemporaries: all of the people who were born at approximately the same time, considered as a group, and especially when considered as having shared interests and attitudes
"the younger generation"
2) stage in descent: a single stage in the descent of a family or a group of people, animals, or plants, or the individual members of that stage
"three generations down the line"
3) time taken to produce new generation: the period of time that it takes for people, animals, or plants to grow up and produce their own offspring, in humans held to be between 30 and 35 years
"after three generations of war and conflict"
4) particular generation in sequence: a particular numbered stage in the sequence of generations of a person being identified with a particular characteristic ( usually used in combination )
"a first-generation immigrant"
"a third-generation graduate"
It is easy to see here that a generation is defined as a group of people that are identified as aging within the same time period.
Now let's see how the bible views a generation.
Judges 2:10--After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither the LORD nor what he had done for Israel.
All that generation - i. e. the main body of those who were grown-up men at the time of the conquest of Canaan.
Exodus 1:6--In time, Joseph and all of his brothers died, ending that entire generation.
Self explanatory.
Matthew 1:17 "So all the generations from Abraham to David [are] fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon [are] fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ [are] fourteen generations."
This lists successive members of a genealogy.
Now compare that with the latest attempt from the Jehovah's Witnesses at explaining what a generation is.
"John Barr made clear that the gathering wound not continue indefinitely. He referred to Matthew 24:34, which says: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." He twice read the comment: "Jesus evidently meant that the lives of the anointed ones who were on hand when the sign began to be evident in 1914 would overlap with the lives of the other anointed ones who would see the start of the great tribulation." We do not know the exact length of "this generation," but it includes these two groups whose lives overlap. Even though the anointed vary in age, those in the two groups constituting the generation are contemporaries during the part of the last days. How comforting it is to know that the younger anointed contemporaries of those older anointed ones who discerned the sign when it became evident beginning in 1914 will not die off before the great tribulation starts!" (jwfacts.com)
Nowhere in the bible can this definition be found. If I am mistaken, I hope someone is kind enough to show me. What would lead them to draw this conclusion? Reread the last sentence in the above quote. It comforts them to know that younger anointed contemporaries will not die off before the great tribulation starts. I find that statement very revealing. Why? All one needs to do is examine the old claims.
"A "generation" might be reckoned as equivalent to a century (practically the present limit) or one hundred and twenty years, Moses' lifetime and the Scripture limit. (Gen. 6:3.) Reckoning a hundred years from 1780, the date of the first sign, the limit would reach to 1880 Or, since the Master said, "When ye shall see all these things," and since "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven," and the budding fig tree, and the gathering of "the elect" are counted among the signs, it would not be inconsistent to reckon the "generation" from 1878 to 1914--36 1/2 years-- about the average of human life today." Studies in the Scriptures Series IV - The Day of Vengeance 1897 ed. pp.604, 605
After 1914 came and went, they changed to the next view.
"The irresistible conclusion therefore is that Jesus referred to the new creation [the anointed] when he said: “This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled.” This then would be a strong indication that some members of the new creation will be on the earth at the time of Armageddon."”
The idea that a generation could last about 1900 years was changed to this--
"So it was on “this generation” that the accumulated judgments were to fall. (Matt. 23:36) This therefore means that from 1914 a generation shall not pass till all is fulfilled, and amidst a great time of trouble." Watchtower 1951 Jul 1 p.404
"The length of time is indicated by him when he said, "Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." (Matt. 24:34) The actual meaning of these words is, beyond question, that which takes a "generation" in the ordinary sense, as at Mark 8:12 and Acts 13:36, or for those who are living at the given period." Watchtower 1951 July 1 p.404
Interestingly enough, they must have questioned their own view, since it changed again. But let's continue viewing their claims for now.
"Jesus was obviously speaking about those who were old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the 'last days' began. ... Even if we presume that youngsters 15 years of age would be perceptive enough to realize the import of what happened in 1914, it would still make the youngest of 'this generation' nearly 70 years old today." Awake! 1968 October 8 p.13
"According to available statistics, in 1980 approximately 250,000,000 of those who were alive in 1914 were still living. That generation is not yet gone. Interestingly, however, of those born in 1900 or earlier, figures published by the United Nations indicate that only an estimated 35,316,000 were still alive in 1980. So the number drops quickly as individuals reach their seventies and eighties. When considered along with all the details of Jesus’ prophetic sign, these facts strongly indicate that the end is near." Survival into a New Earth (1984) p.28 How Long Will the Present System Last?
And then came this little gem.
"Eager to see the end of this evil system, Jehovah's people have at times speculated about the time when the "great tribulation" would break out, even tying this to calculations of what is the lifetime of a generation since 1914. However, we "bring a heart of wisdom in," not by speculating about how many years or days make up a generation, but by thinking about how we "count our days" in bringing joyful praise to Jehovah. (Psalm 90:12) Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term "generation" as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics. In line with the above, professor of history Robert Wohl wrote in his book The Generation of 1914: "A historical generation is not defined by its chronological limits . . . It is not a zone of dates." Therefore, in the final fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy today, "this generation" apparently refers to the peoples of earth who see the sign of Christ's presence but fail to mend their ways Is anything to be gained, then, by looking for dates or by speculating about the literal lifetime of a "generation"?... Does our more precise viewpoint on "this generation" mean that Armageddon is further away than we had thought? Not at all! Though we at no time have known the "day and hour," Jehovah God has always known it, and he does not change. (Malachi 3:6) Obviously, the world is sinking further and further toward terminal ruination. The need to keep awake is more critical than it has ever been. Jehovah has revealed to us "the things that must shortly take place," and we should respond with an absorbing sense of urgency." Watchtower 1995 November 1 p.20
Wait a minute. Who was speculating again?
There are numerous quotes that can be pulled up to show that the JWs had no idea how to define what a generation is. It seems as if they would attempt to entice the public to believe that there was not much time remaining for them to decide. It also kept current members hopeful that the end was near.
Anyone with a reasonable mind has to wonder how a religious group that claims to be getting directed by God's holy spirit, could continuously error in their assessment of a generation. Whenever one explanation doesn't seem to attract the attention of outsiders, a change is made to stimulate interest once again. And apparently they will not openly state they were mistaken, as once more, it was Jehovah's people that were doing the speculating. But then again, they had to. If anyone decided to speak up and say that these ever-shifting views were in error, they would have been disfellowshipped on the spot.
This latest attempt at what defines a generation has to be the worst one yet. It is a far cry from the following quote,
"If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the "last days" in 1914, Jesus foretold: "This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur."
Awake! 1969 May 22 p.15
How much longer will people continue to trust the statements given?
The Faithful and Discreet Slave
"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings." Matthew 24:45-47
The bible verses that the Jehovah's Witnesses use to solidify their claim as the one true religion. But how, you might ask, can this be possible? Let's look at a few articles from JW literature to see exactly what they have claimed.
"Over a period of more than 1,960 years, that work of education has continued, preparing a little flock made up of people from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation" to serve with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom." Yearbook 1996 p.3
"In this regard, the book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached stated: "As to just how the 'faithful and discreet slave' class existed and served down through the centuries after the death of the apostles of the Master Jesus Christ, we do not have a distinct historical picture. Apparently one generation of the 'slave' class fed the next succeeding generation thereof. (2 Timothy 2:2)" Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16
"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this parable pertains to the one true congregation of Jesus Christ's anointed followers. Beginning with Pentecost, 33 C.E., and continuing through the 19 centuries since then, this slavelike congregation has been feeding its members spiritually, doing so faithfully and discreetly . the one approved channel representing God's kingdom on earth in the "time of the end."" Watchtower 1981 March 1 p.24 Do You Appreciate the "Faithful and Discreet Slave"?
"That "slave," according to Jesus' description, would be on hand when the Lord departed for heaven and would still be alive at the time of Christ's return. Such a description could not possibly fit an individual human. But it does fit Christ's faithful anointed congregation viewed as a whole." United in Worship of the Only True God p.119
"We understand that this heavenly calling continued down through the centuries, though during the so-called Dark Ages, there may have been times when the number of anointed ones were very few." Watchtower 1996 Aug 15 p. 31
From those articles, it appears that the faithful and discreet slave is the anointed followers of Jesus, which have existed from the time Jesus left to the time of his return. Also, this slave class has been passing the teachings on from one generation of slave class members down to the next. They have fed the true congregation spiritual food all the way down to our modern times.
Yet admittedly, this cannot be proven historically. This raised many questions for me as I attempted to find the answers to this claim. Why can no line of descent be found at anytime in history? If the true teachings were handed down from generation to generation, would it be possible for any false teachings to slip into the congregation? Since the slave class would know who they were, why would it be necessary for Jesus to return in order to identify who the modern day slave class was? Since Charles Taze Russell is considered an anointed one by the JWs, who handed him down the teachings from the previous generation?
I presented these questions to the JWs, who were sent by the Watchtower Society to answer my questions. I was a little surprised at the response given. They turned to the wheat and the weeds parable found in Matthew 13:24-30,36-43. This parable states that the wheat and weeds will grow together and remain that way until harvest time. Jesus explains who the wheat and weeds are, along with when this harvest would happen. After reading this to me, they pointed out how the clergy had been supressing christianity down through history. I was handed two seperate printouts, each of which listed individuals/groups that rallied against the clergy, such as the Waldenses and the Lollards. So apparently the slave class members were deceived into believing false doctrines. But there were several that began to reject the teachings of the clergy.
The push against the clergy became stronger with groups like the Millerites, the Adventists, and individuals like Henry Grew and George Storrs rejecting certain teachings. The following quote sums it up by saying,
"Throughout the centuries there have always been truth lovers. To mention just a few: John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384) and William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) furthered the work of Bible translation even at the risk of their life or freedom. Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1478-1541), Martin Cellarius (1499-1564), Johannes Campanus (c. 1500-1575), and Thomas Emlyn (1663-c. 1741) accepted the Bible as God's Word and rejected the Trinity. Henry Grew (1781-1862) and George Storrs (1796-1879) not only accepted the Bible and rejected the Trinity but also expressed appreciation for the ransom sacrifice of Christ. Although we cannot positively identify any of such persons as "the wheat" of Jesus' illustration, certainly "Jehovah knows those who belong to him."" Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.44
They also handed me a booklet titled "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Page 147 has a list given by the JWs as to Those Who Worship the True God. These are the identity marks they give. 1)Base their teachings on the bible, 2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known, 3)show genuine love for one another, 4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation, 5)are no part of the world, 6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope. Before I get into addressing this list, we need to understand that they believe the harvest work being done is identifying them as the wheat-like ones mentioned in the parable. According to them, since we are living in the conclusion of this system (others use the term age or world), there really can be only one choice as to who Jesus picked as God's chosen people.
My opinion of their view is as follows. Right from the start, the jump to the wheat/weeds parable is a direct contradiction to the view about slave class members passing down spiritual food from one generation to the next. If the slave class had "grown together" with the weeds, they would have inherited false doctrines, believing them to be true. So how would it be possible to give spiritual food at the proper time if the food is rotten?
My next point is about the attempts at identifying who these wheatlike ones were in history. Why even make an attempt if they can't "positively identify" the wheat of Jesus' parable? The parable never states that anyone would rebel against the church. Growing together means that it would be impossible to identify one from the other. Making any such claim is speculation, and verse 41 is pretty clear as to who makes the decision. "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil." Notice it does not say that a new group of people will be gathered. It states that the evil ones get removed. Once the angels remove the evil ones, the true worshippers will be the only ones left. So if the JWs are identifying the clergy as the evil ones, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that it will be the ones left from "their congregation" as the true worshippers?
Back to those identity marks. 1)Base their teachings on the bible. All bible based religions do this. What if the interpretation of the bible leads to false doctrines?
2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known. Jehovah's name was never written in the New Testament, and the translation of the name Jehovah is incorrect. Would it please God if His name was being mispronounced? We know how He felt about those that did not give Him full devotion. Since no other religions use the name Jehovah (at least to my knowledge, but I could be mistaken), it is easy to see why this would make the JWs list of identity marks given for true worship.
3)show genuine love for one another. This is included on the list because of war. The JWs can point out other christian based religions that have killed one another during times of war. However, there are several religious groups that refuse to fight in wars. Another thing to point out here is why the JWs have such a hatred towards the Catholics, since it would be entirely possible that a Catholic of the past could have been a slave class member.
4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation. Although the JWs claim to do this, it is very evident that it is the Governing Body and the faithful and discreet slave. Note the following quote.
"These overseers faithfully seek to apply instructions received from Jehovah God and Jesus Christ by means of the faithful and discreet slave and its Governing Body." Watchtower 1990 Mar 15 p.20
I thought Jesus was the mediator between God and men? But somehow, he has passed that duty on to this governing body? I think not.
5)are no part of the world. The involvement with the United Nations puts an end to this claim. Then there was the Jimmy Swaggart case, to which the JWs were involved with due to the fact that they might get taxed for selling literature. Then there was the matter in Bulgaria. The next quote taken from jwfacts.com states,
On March 9th 1998, the Watchtower Society and the European Commission of Human Rights brokered an agreement with the government of Bulgaria. For Jehovah's Witnesses to be recognized as a religious organization in Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society had to ensure that "members should have free choice in the matter [of blood transfusions] for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association." The Watchtower Society guaranteed that Witnesses are free to make their own choice on the use of blood, with blood transfusions removed from being a disfellowshipping offence. This was quite deceptive, as taking blood became an offence to be disassociated instead, making any freedom of choice quite meaningless.
There are also cases of Government lobbying, and documented involvement in the world's commercial system. I thought materialism was wrong?
6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope. Ok, I will give them this one, although it is a rare occasion when a jw actually preaches about the kingdom. Need proof? Take a poll in your neighborhood and see if anyone will tell you that God's Kingdom was even discussed.
What is commonly overlooked though is that this checklist of theirs is a modern day checklist that applies to what world religions are doing now. The problem with this is that Jesus inspection, according to jw teachings, occured during the year 1919. So we can't base our conclusions on what religions are doing now since it would have been well after Jesus' inspection. Now if we were to take the criteria the jws use today and apply it to what was being taught back then, the results might surprise you. Let's go through that list again.
1)Base their teachings on the bible,
Michael the Archangel was the Pope? The Leviathan in Job was a locomotive? God would destroy the churches in 1918? The glory of the angel of Revelation 18:1 refers to modern discoveries such as a SEWING MACHINE?
I could list many more examples, but I think it is quite clear that they would have failed on this point.
2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known,
The jws worshipped Jesus too, all the way up to the year 1954, in which the view was changed. Since Jesus was the inspector, I think he would recognize this as a failure.
3)show genuine love for one another,
This is from a WT 1900 Oct 1, p-296-297.
"From Black to White He Slowly Turned"
Parkersburg, W. Va., Sept. 8. It has fallen to the lot of the Rev. William H. Draper, pastor of the Logan Memorial church, of Washington Conference, A.M.E. church, of this town, to give a living affirmative answer to the famous Biblical question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Though once as black as charcoal, the Rev. Mr. Draper is now white. His people say that his color was changed in answer to prayer. Many years ago Draper was employed by a fair-skinned man, and he was often heard to remark that if he could only be white like his employer, he would be happy. While in the white man's service Draper `experienced' religion.
Really? Fail!
4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation,
"To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb 15 p.12
And Jesus??? If Jesus was the inspector, do you think he would be upset that these people are placing more emphasis on this organization, and less on him? Fail!
5)are no part of the world,
6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope.
The last two they appear to pass. But by their own criteria, they fail on 4 out of 6 lines of these identity marks. However, most current members are unaware of this since the focus has been shifted to a modern day inspection instead of when the actual claim took place in 1919.
Another factor to consider is that the jws believed that C.T. Russell was the faithful and discreet slave up until the year 1927, when the view was changed. However, Russell died in the year 1916. So for 11 years, a person that was dead was considered as this faithful and discreet slave? The following quote verifies this.
The Finished Mystery (1917) p.144
Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work.
Wouldn't this be considered spiritism?
In conclusion, I think that the view of this slave class is incorrect. Jesus' parable in Matthew 24 about the slave was a decision that this slave was about to make during his master's absence. This was not a prophecy. It was an illustration told to help Jesus' disciples understand the importance of staying alert. The other main fault that I see in their reasoning is that they attempt to identify certain individuals as the wheat, and then give a specific date as to when Jesus returned to identify the Watchtower society as the modern day slave class. And lastly, the view given about the slave class feeding the flock from one generation down to the next is a complete contradiction of the view about how the slave class had "grown together" with false religion.
And now it appears that only the Governing Body is considered as the slave class. And now instead of this being passed down from generation to generation, the JWs changed the view to it beginning in 1919. Interesting that they had no idea who the slave class was until recently. I would think that if one was appointed an important position by God, they would know who that person or group were at the time of being appointed. The fact that they recently identified whom the faithful and discreet slave is only solidifies this as a false teaching.
Also, why would Jesus wait all of this time to appoint the slave? Wouldn't the Master have appointed the slave as soon as he had departed? Even using their own faulty reasoning, this concept caves in on itself.
The bible verses that the Jehovah's Witnesses use to solidify their claim as the one true religion. But how, you might ask, can this be possible? Let's look at a few articles from JW literature to see exactly what they have claimed.
"Over a period of more than 1,960 years, that work of education has continued, preparing a little flock made up of people from "every tribe and tongue and people and nation" to serve with Christ in his heavenly Kingdom." Yearbook 1996 p.3
"In this regard, the book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached stated: "As to just how the 'faithful and discreet slave' class existed and served down through the centuries after the death of the apostles of the Master Jesus Christ, we do not have a distinct historical picture. Apparently one generation of the 'slave' class fed the next succeeding generation thereof. (2 Timothy 2:2)" Watchtower 1995 May 15 p.16
"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that this parable pertains to the one true congregation of Jesus Christ's anointed followers. Beginning with Pentecost, 33 C.E., and continuing through the 19 centuries since then, this slavelike congregation has been feeding its members spiritually, doing so faithfully and discreetly . the one approved channel representing God's kingdom on earth in the "time of the end."" Watchtower 1981 March 1 p.24 Do You Appreciate the "Faithful and Discreet Slave"?
"That "slave," according to Jesus' description, would be on hand when the Lord departed for heaven and would still be alive at the time of Christ's return. Such a description could not possibly fit an individual human. But it does fit Christ's faithful anointed congregation viewed as a whole." United in Worship of the Only True God p.119
"We understand that this heavenly calling continued down through the centuries, though during the so-called Dark Ages, there may have been times when the number of anointed ones were very few." Watchtower 1996 Aug 15 p. 31
From those articles, it appears that the faithful and discreet slave is the anointed followers of Jesus, which have existed from the time Jesus left to the time of his return. Also, this slave class has been passing the teachings on from one generation of slave class members down to the next. They have fed the true congregation spiritual food all the way down to our modern times.
Yet admittedly, this cannot be proven historically. This raised many questions for me as I attempted to find the answers to this claim. Why can no line of descent be found at anytime in history? If the true teachings were handed down from generation to generation, would it be possible for any false teachings to slip into the congregation? Since the slave class would know who they were, why would it be necessary for Jesus to return in order to identify who the modern day slave class was? Since Charles Taze Russell is considered an anointed one by the JWs, who handed him down the teachings from the previous generation?
I presented these questions to the JWs, who were sent by the Watchtower Society to answer my questions. I was a little surprised at the response given. They turned to the wheat and the weeds parable found in Matthew 13:24-30,36-43. This parable states that the wheat and weeds will grow together and remain that way until harvest time. Jesus explains who the wheat and weeds are, along with when this harvest would happen. After reading this to me, they pointed out how the clergy had been supressing christianity down through history. I was handed two seperate printouts, each of which listed individuals/groups that rallied against the clergy, such as the Waldenses and the Lollards. So apparently the slave class members were deceived into believing false doctrines. But there were several that began to reject the teachings of the clergy.
The push against the clergy became stronger with groups like the Millerites, the Adventists, and individuals like Henry Grew and George Storrs rejecting certain teachings. The following quote sums it up by saying,
"Throughout the centuries there have always been truth lovers. To mention just a few: John Wycliffe (c. 1330-1384) and William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) furthered the work of Bible translation even at the risk of their life or freedom. Wolfgang Fabricius Capito (1478-1541), Martin Cellarius (1499-1564), Johannes Campanus (c. 1500-1575), and Thomas Emlyn (1663-c. 1741) accepted the Bible as God's Word and rejected the Trinity. Henry Grew (1781-1862) and George Storrs (1796-1879) not only accepted the Bible and rejected the Trinity but also expressed appreciation for the ransom sacrifice of Christ. Although we cannot positively identify any of such persons as "the wheat" of Jesus' illustration, certainly "Jehovah knows those who belong to him."" Jehovah's Witnesses-Proclaimers of God's Kingdom p.44
They also handed me a booklet titled "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Page 147 has a list given by the JWs as to Those Who Worship the True God. These are the identity marks they give. 1)Base their teachings on the bible, 2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known, 3)show genuine love for one another, 4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation, 5)are no part of the world, 6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope. Before I get into addressing this list, we need to understand that they believe the harvest work being done is identifying them as the wheat-like ones mentioned in the parable. According to them, since we are living in the conclusion of this system (others use the term age or world), there really can be only one choice as to who Jesus picked as God's chosen people.
My opinion of their view is as follows. Right from the start, the jump to the wheat/weeds parable is a direct contradiction to the view about slave class members passing down spiritual food from one generation to the next. If the slave class had "grown together" with the weeds, they would have inherited false doctrines, believing them to be true. So how would it be possible to give spiritual food at the proper time if the food is rotten?
My next point is about the attempts at identifying who these wheatlike ones were in history. Why even make an attempt if they can't "positively identify" the wheat of Jesus' parable? The parable never states that anyone would rebel against the church. Growing together means that it would be impossible to identify one from the other. Making any such claim is speculation, and verse 41 is pretty clear as to who makes the decision. "The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil." Notice it does not say that a new group of people will be gathered. It states that the evil ones get removed. Once the angels remove the evil ones, the true worshippers will be the only ones left. So if the JWs are identifying the clergy as the evil ones, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that it will be the ones left from "their congregation" as the true worshippers?
Back to those identity marks. 1)Base their teachings on the bible. All bible based religions do this. What if the interpretation of the bible leads to false doctrines?
2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known. Jehovah's name was never written in the New Testament, and the translation of the name Jehovah is incorrect. Would it please God if His name was being mispronounced? We know how He felt about those that did not give Him full devotion. Since no other religions use the name Jehovah (at least to my knowledge, but I could be mistaken), it is easy to see why this would make the JWs list of identity marks given for true worship.
3)show genuine love for one another. This is included on the list because of war. The JWs can point out other christian based religions that have killed one another during times of war. However, there are several religious groups that refuse to fight in wars. Another thing to point out here is why the JWs have such a hatred towards the Catholics, since it would be entirely possible that a Catholic of the past could have been a slave class member.
4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation. Although the JWs claim to do this, it is very evident that it is the Governing Body and the faithful and discreet slave. Note the following quote.
"These overseers faithfully seek to apply instructions received from Jehovah God and Jesus Christ by means of the faithful and discreet slave and its Governing Body." Watchtower 1990 Mar 15 p.20
I thought Jesus was the mediator between God and men? But somehow, he has passed that duty on to this governing body? I think not.
5)are no part of the world. The involvement with the United Nations puts an end to this claim. Then there was the Jimmy Swaggart case, to which the JWs were involved with due to the fact that they might get taxed for selling literature. Then there was the matter in Bulgaria. The next quote taken from jwfacts.com states,
On March 9th 1998, the Watchtower Society and the European Commission of Human Rights brokered an agreement with the government of Bulgaria. For Jehovah's Witnesses to be recognized as a religious organization in Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society had to ensure that "members should have free choice in the matter [of blood transfusions] for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association." The Watchtower Society guaranteed that Witnesses are free to make their own choice on the use of blood, with blood transfusions removed from being a disfellowshipping offence. This was quite deceptive, as taking blood became an offence to be disassociated instead, making any freedom of choice quite meaningless.
There are also cases of Government lobbying, and documented involvement in the world's commercial system. I thought materialism was wrong?
6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope. Ok, I will give them this one, although it is a rare occasion when a jw actually preaches about the kingdom. Need proof? Take a poll in your neighborhood and see if anyone will tell you that God's Kingdom was even discussed.
What is commonly overlooked though is that this checklist of theirs is a modern day checklist that applies to what world religions are doing now. The problem with this is that Jesus inspection, according to jw teachings, occured during the year 1919. So we can't base our conclusions on what religions are doing now since it would have been well after Jesus' inspection. Now if we were to take the criteria the jws use today and apply it to what was being taught back then, the results might surprise you. Let's go through that list again.
1)Base their teachings on the bible,
Michael the Archangel was the Pope? The Leviathan in Job was a locomotive? God would destroy the churches in 1918? The glory of the angel of Revelation 18:1 refers to modern discoveries such as a SEWING MACHINE?
I could list many more examples, but I think it is quite clear that they would have failed on this point.
2)worship only Jehovah and make His name known,
The jws worshipped Jesus too, all the way up to the year 1954, in which the view was changed. Since Jesus was the inspector, I think he would recognize this as a failure.
3)show genuine love for one another,
This is from a WT 1900 Oct 1, p-296-297.
"From Black to White He Slowly Turned"
Parkersburg, W. Va., Sept. 8. It has fallen to the lot of the Rev. William H. Draper, pastor of the Logan Memorial church, of Washington Conference, A.M.E. church, of this town, to give a living affirmative answer to the famous Biblical question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Though once as black as charcoal, the Rev. Mr. Draper is now white. His people say that his color was changed in answer to prayer. Many years ago Draper was employed by a fair-skinned man, and he was often heard to remark that if he could only be white like his employer, he would be happy. While in the white man's service Draper `experienced' religion.
Really? Fail!
4)accept Jesus as God's means of salvation,
"To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb 15 p.12
And Jesus??? If Jesus was the inspector, do you think he would be upset that these people are placing more emphasis on this organization, and less on him? Fail!
5)are no part of the world,
6)preach God's kingdom as man's only hope.
The last two they appear to pass. But by their own criteria, they fail on 4 out of 6 lines of these identity marks. However, most current members are unaware of this since the focus has been shifted to a modern day inspection instead of when the actual claim took place in 1919.
Another factor to consider is that the jws believed that C.T. Russell was the faithful and discreet slave up until the year 1927, when the view was changed. However, Russell died in the year 1916. So for 11 years, a person that was dead was considered as this faithful and discreet slave? The following quote verifies this.
The Finished Mystery (1917) p.144
Though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work.
Wouldn't this be considered spiritism?
In conclusion, I think that the view of this slave class is incorrect. Jesus' parable in Matthew 24 about the slave was a decision that this slave was about to make during his master's absence. This was not a prophecy. It was an illustration told to help Jesus' disciples understand the importance of staying alert. The other main fault that I see in their reasoning is that they attempt to identify certain individuals as the wheat, and then give a specific date as to when Jesus returned to identify the Watchtower society as the modern day slave class. And lastly, the view given about the slave class feeding the flock from one generation down to the next is a complete contradiction of the view about how the slave class had "grown together" with false religion.
And now it appears that only the Governing Body is considered as the slave class. And now instead of this being passed down from generation to generation, the JWs changed the view to it beginning in 1919. Interesting that they had no idea who the slave class was until recently. I would think that if one was appointed an important position by God, they would know who that person or group were at the time of being appointed. The fact that they recently identified whom the faithful and discreet slave is only solidifies this as a false teaching.
Also, why would Jesus wait all of this time to appoint the slave? Wouldn't the Master have appointed the slave as soon as he had departed? Even using their own faulty reasoning, this concept caves in on itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)